Sunil Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.34924 of 2015 Arising out of PS.Case No. -70 Year- 2014 Thana -SIDHWARA District- DARBHANGA ====================================================== Sunil Sah, son of Kishori Sah, resident of village - Panshalla Manikauli, Police Station - Singhwara and District - Darbhanga. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Kumar No-2, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 05-10-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State The petitioner is languishing in custody since 24.05.2015 in connection with Singhwara P.S. Case No. 70 of 2014 for the offences instituted under Sections 376/ 511/34 of the IPC. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the informant went to the clinic of Dr. Dhrub Pandey and he asked her to lay on the bed in the clinic and she laid down on bed. It is further alleged that this petitioner came and lay on her, caught her and began teasing after putting his hand inside her blouse. She protested and the petitioner tore her blouse and after lifting her Sari attempted to commit rape upon her. The informant tried on which accused Dhrub Pandey came and closed her mouth and asked her to lay

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34924 of 2015 (3) dt.05-10-2015 2/2 silently and he also molesting, in the meantime, the villager Dhiran Thakur came then the petitioner and co-accused left her. She came out with torn Sari and blouse from the clinic. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. The petitioner is in custody since 24.05.2015 and the charge sheet has been submitted in the case. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case due to dispute regarding deposit of fee of the doctor. On behalf of the State it has been submitted that the petitioner is the compounder of the doctor. The allegation that has been made against the petitioner and the doctor who had examined the informant are not expected from the doctor and the compounder of any Nursing Home.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The same is rejected in Singhwara P.S. Case No. 70 of 2014, pending in the court of the learned J.M. Ist Class, Darbhanga.

U.K./- (Sudhir Singh, J) U T